1920-04-14

[Stage Direction]
SECOND REPORT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PENSION®.
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) presented the second report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of pensions now being paid to pensioners, and to continue the inquiry relating to Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
On motion of Mr. Cronyn the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce-Mr. Cockishutt.
Copy of the English text of the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania signed at Paris December 9, 1919-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
General order of Ithe Exchequer Court-Right Hon. Mr. Sifton.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Have all the Government employees at Sorel received a bonus for last year?
2.	If not, what branch of the service has not received it?
3.	How many employees have not received said bonus, and for what reason?
4.	Does the Government intend to treat all employees alike?
5.	Does the Government intend to give the bonus to those who have not yet received it?
6.	What is the intention of the Government as regards employees for the future?


Rt. Hon. A. L. SIFTON:: Customs and Inland Revenue.
1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4 and 5. (Answered by 1).
6. No information.
Marine and Fisheries.
1.	No.
2.	Mechanics and labourers in the Government shipyards have not received the bonus since April, 1919.
3.	386, reason-they are feoeiving prevailing rates of pay.
4.	Yes-subject to regulation governing the payment of bonus.
5.	Yes, if (they are entitled to it under the regulations.
6.	The intention of the Government will be made known from time to time as occasion may require.
Public Works.
1.	The only employee connected with this department at Sorel, Que., was paid the bonus.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. No information.


FEDERAL EMERGENCY FUND.
Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What was the total amount of the Federal Emergency Fund for the re-establishment of. the returned soldier expended up to March X,. 1920?
2.	What was the total amount expended per
month for the months of November, December,. January and February?	,
3.	The total amount expended in each province?
4.	What amount of the $40,000,000 remains unexpended ?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	$2,922,283.48. No report from Yukon
for February.
2. November	 Nil.
December and January.. $1,567,179.16
February	 1,355,104.32
$2^922,283.48
S. Alberta	$ 433,813.87
British Columbia	 550,355.40
Manitoba	 140,244.83
New Brunswick	 26,336.8b
. Nova Scotia	 72,771.75
Ontario	 825,851.63
Prince Edward Island..	8,441.44
Quebec		707,034.09
Saskatchewan	 154,568.37
Yukon	 2,885.25


WELLAND CANAL.
Mr. ROBB:: 
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	8,300 cubic yards of lake gravel.
2.	$1.50 per cubic yard, scow measurement, delivered in piles at each end of concrete road.
3.	National Sand and Material Company, Limited, Welland, Ont.
4.	Sufficient gravel to complete highway has not been purchased, and about 3,500 cubic yards more gravel will be required.
RENT OF DALY BUILDING, OTTAWA. Mr. KAY:
1.	What rent is paid by the Government for the Daly building on Rideau street?
2.	How long does the lease run?
3.	What departments of the Government occupy this building?
4.	Is it fully occupied?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$85,000 per annum, which equals 56-93 cents per square foot.
2.	1st July, 1924.
3.	Basement by Militia and Defence, 1st floor by Militia and Defence, 2nd floor by Militia and Defence, 3rd floor by Income Tax Branch of Finance Department, 4th floor by Department of Health, 5th floor by Trade and Commerce, Census and Statistics Branch, 6th floor by Trade and Commerce, Census and Statistics Branch.
4.	Yes. The basement, first and second floors have been fully occupied by the De-

partment of Militia and Defence since the building was leased. The third floor was occupied by a portion of the Census and Statistics until the Naval and Marine Departments were moved from the fifth and sixth floors to the Hunter Building, when the Census and Statistics were moved to the fifth and sixth floors occupying them fully. The Income Tax Branch occupied a large portion of the third floor as soon as vacated by the Census; the central portion of this floor being very dark was vacant for a period of about two weeks, but is now occupied by the stationery section of the Income Tax Branch for the storage and distribution of the tax forms. The Department of Health occupies the whole of the fourth floor.


CANADIAN MOTOR CAR PLANTS.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many motor car plants are there in Canada?
2.	What is the total number of people employed in these plants?
3.	What was the total amount of wages paid by these plants during last year?
4.	What was the value of the total output from these plants during the last year?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The number of motor car plants operating in Canada in 1918 was 9.
2.	The total number of employees in 1918 was as follows: On salary, 627; on wages, 3,941; total, 4,568.
3.	The total amount paid in wages during 1918 was $4,504,368, and in salaries, $1,121,564.
4.	The total output for the year 191S was $59,858,444.
MR. DeWITT FOSTER.


Mr. HALBERT:: 1.	Was Mr. DeWitt Foster, now Superintendent Resources Canadian National Railways, with office at 2502 Marquette Building, Chicago, a member of the House of Commons representing a Nova Scotia constituency from 1911 to 1915?
2.	Was the said DeWitt Foster read out of his party by the Prime Minister by reason of improper dealings in connection with horses purchased for the Government?
3.	By whom was he appointed to his present position?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The records of the House show that Mr. DeWitt Foster was a member of Parliament from 1911 to April 24, 1915, and that he resigned on April 24, 1915. The Government has no record as to the matters alleged in the question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1. What is the total of Income Tax collected for 1917?
2.	What is the total of Income Tax collected
for 1918?	,
3.	What is the percentage of cost of collection for 1917?
4.	What is the percentage of cost of collection for 1918?
5.	What is the amount of Income Tax collected in each province for 1917 and 1918 respectively?
6.	What is the percentage of cost of collection in each province for 1917 and 1918 respectively?


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What are the number of fishermen who were engaged in the mackerel fishery during the last official year of the Fishery Department in the county of Yarmouth, N.S.?
2.	How many fishermen were engaged in the said fishery during the said year in the county of Shelburne, N.S.?
3.	How many fishermen were engaged in the said fishery during the said year in the county of Queen's, N.S.?
4.	How many fishermen were engaged in the said fishery during the said year in the county of Lunenburg, N.S.?
5.	How many fishermen were engaged in the said fishery during the said year in the county of Guysborough, N.S.?
6.	What method of fishing has been adopted and has been used by the men fishing for mackerel in the county of Yarmouth during said year?
7.	What method of fishing has been adopted and has been used by the men fishing for mackerel in the county of Shelburne during said year?
8.	What method of fishing has been adopted and has been used by the men fishing for mackerel in the county of Queen's during said year?
9.	What method of fishing has been adopted and has been used by the men fishing for mackerel in the county of Lunenburg during said year?
10.	What method of fishing has been adopted and has been used by the men fishing for mackerel in the county of Guysborough during said year?
11.	How many licenses were granted for seining to fishermen belonging to the county to Yarmouth in said year?
12.	How many licenses were granted for seining to fishermen belonging to the county of Shelburne in said year?
13.	How many licenses were granted for seining to fishermen belonging to the county of Queen's in said year?
14.	How many licenses were granted for seining to fishermen belonging to the county of Lunenburg in said year? *
15.	How many licenses were granted for seining to fishermen belonging to the county of Guysborough in said year?
16.	How many fishermen belonging to the county of Yarmouth caught mackerel by drifting 'r said year?
17.	How many fishermen belonging to the county of Shelburne caught mackerel by drifting in said year?
18.	How many fishermen belonging to the county of Queen's caught mackerel by drifting in said year?
19.	How many fishermen belonging to the county of Lunenburg caught mackerel by drifting in said year?
/

20.	How many fishermen belonging to the county of Guysborough caught mackerel by drifting in said year?
21.	How many licenses were granted for mackerel traps to the fishermen of the county of Yarmouth in said year?
22.	How many licenses were granted for mackerel traps to the fishermen of the county of 'Shelburne in said year?
23.	How many licenses were granted for mackerel traps to the fishermen of the county of Queen's in said year?
24.	How many licenses were granted for mackerel traps to the fishermen of the county of Lunenburg in said year?
25.	How many licenses were granted for mackerel traps to the fishermen of the county cf Gujsborough in said year.'
26.	How many mackerel nets were used by fishermen belonging to Yarmouth county during said year for the purpose of fishing for mackerel?
27.	How many mackerel nets were used by fishermen belonging to Shelburne county during said year for the purpose of fishing for mackerel?
28.	How many mackerel nets were used by fishermen belonging to Queen's county during said year for the purpose of fishing for mackerel?
29.	How many mackerel nets were used by fishermen belonging to Lunenburg county during said year for the purpose of fishing for mackerel ?
30.	How many mackerel nets were used by fishermen belonging to Guysborough county during said year for the purpose of fishing for mackerel?



QUEBEC RIOTS OF 1918.

Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West) moved:: or twelve soldieis, was roughly handled by them. Before reading the letter, I may say that I communicated with the writer, and the first thing I did was to ask him whether he had taken part in the rioting, because I say at once that I would not want to bring before the House the case of a man who was one of the rioters. This is what this man says:
In answer to your letter requesting details of the wounds which I received during the time of -the Quebec riots, and asking me whether I was one of the rioters, I may state that I was not. I was travelling on St. Valier street when I was attacked. I was going home at half past five in the afternoon on Sunday the 31st of March, the day before the riots. I was bayoneted four times. These bayonets penetrated the abdomen and moreover I was struck by the butt end of a rifle on the head to such an extent that my health has diminished fifty per cent and according to my physicians I will be obliged to undergo an operation every two years for the rest of my life. I have given full information to Doctors George Racine and Simard, of the Hotel Dieu, and if I should happen to forget anything, these people will give you the details.
There was more than that. We find that the prejudice became so pronounced that when men, wounded and perhaps on the point of dying, called for priests so that they might receive the last rites of the Church, even the priests were grossly insulted by the soldiers. An investigation was held subsequently, as you know, Sir, and from this information I have gathered the following evidence. This is the evidence that was given by Father Evain, a priest from France, an Oblate Father of the Parish of St. Sauveur, Quebec.
I was called upon about 10.45 on the evening of April 1 to give the last rites of the church to some of the wounded.
When I first heard the sound of firing I was in my own room and on looking through the window I saw a crowd at the corner of St. Valier and Sauvageau streets. I saw young men running along Sauvageau. I noticed a group of thirty or forty young men and heard at the same time a burst of rapid fire. Some one called out to me, "Father, you will be killed," to which I answered, "I am a Frenchman and am not afraid." Some of the young men wished to accompany me, but I told them to go home and I continued on alone.
On Demers at the corner of Ragot I saw two men lying on the ground. One of them was wounded and I gave him the rites of the church. Almost as soon as I had finished this task 1 heard behind me reports of firearms and I saw soldiers in a kneeling position firing towards Sauvageau street. I approached them and speaking in English, said ,"For Heaven's sake, don't shoot. They are only passersby and there is no danger." A soldier told me to go to Hell.
I did not answer but looked at him sorrowfully, and he said "Get away from here." I answered, "My friend, I am here to do my duty as much as you." The soldier then told

me that in firing they were acting under orders and that they would shoot any one that would show his head. On my statement that the order was very severe, I was told "Shut your mouth."
A door opened on Demers street and the soldiers went towards it. They again got into a kneeling position ready to fire. The police constable said to them, "There is a woman in the doorway." The answer was, "She has no business to come out."
The witness adds that at the time he left his presbytery at 11.15 business had been re-established and there were only about thirty or forty people in sight but that nevertheless two or three salvos were fired.
Many other cases have come to my knowledge, and though it may be tiresome for the House to listen, II believe it is my duty to bring them before Parliament and the country. The next is the case of young George Demeules, fourteen years of age. His mother, Madam Leumena Berube, appeared as a witness at the coroner's inquest and gave evidence as follows:
The deceased and his brother had procured for themselves tickets for a euchre which was to be held in the hall of the Garde Champlain. They left the house at about 8.30. The other boy Albert, aged 16 years, who had started for the euchre returned about 11.16 stating that there had been no entertainment owing to the small number of people in the hall.
A short time afterwards I was told that one of my children had been wounded in the knee. I went to the home of Depure, Sauvageau street, where I found my child lying dead.
This woman has written me the following letter:
St. Malo, March 17, 1920.
Mr. Geo. Parent,
Sir,-I read in a newspaper an article relating to the claims of the innocent victims of the riots of 1918.
I am the mother of young George Demeules, age 14 years and ten months, who was killed on the first of April, 1918. I am a poor widow and have to support a family of ten children. By the death of my son George I lost one of the main supports of the family.
Would you be kind enough, Sir, to help me in my affliction.
The next is the case of Mr. J. Alfred Mercier, a civil employee in the Crown Lands Department of the Quebec Government. He is past fifty and is known to many citizens of Quebec as one of the most peaceable men you could meet. He describes in the following letter what happened :
I was coming from St. Roch going in the direction of St. Sauveur, when at a place called Boulevard Langelier, I saw a few soldiers who appeared to be on the watch; everything seemed to me perfectly quiet, and there were no civilians at that particular place. A soldier came to meet me, and I asked him if I

could cross on the other side of the street to reach ray home- Seeing that these men were English-speaking, I put this question to him in his own language. He said quite politely that if I wanted to go in, that direction I had to take an upper street (pointing at St.-Valier street), and go right straight ahead. X did obey at once, and taking St. Val-ier street I kept on walking. A few acres further I saw 'hut twelve soldiers standing. There also everything was quiet, and there were no civilians in sight. I was going to put to these men the same question I had just asked- when a soldier nearer to me suddenly rushed with his bayonet. I made a step backward-, raised my hands, and I made this remark in the English language: That I was not armed, that I was going to my home, and I asked him if I could pass at this place. He then answered me: "No, nobody is allowed to pass here. If you want to go that way, you have to take another street." I answered: "All right, I will take -St. Jude's street," and X turned around. I had scarcely done so when a -bullet was fired and went through my left arm about two inches below the elbow. I was then able to make a few steps further, and I went into a house from where the military ambulance came and got me to the hospital.
At that moment it was 9.30- o'clock in the evening, and the troubles which happened that night did not begin until about 11 o'clock. Therefore, there was no justification whatever to fire on a peaceful and well-behaved citizen. After prolonged sufferings it is decided that my arm will remain crooked, and the fingers and the wrist are such that I shall never be able to make use of them.
Then there is the case of Mr. Edouard Tremblay. A lawyer was consulted about his case with the view of finding out whether the city of Quebec could be held responsible for the injuries he had suffered, or whether somebody else, perhaps the Government, could be held responsible. The young lawyer who was consulted is a prominent young man of Quebec City, who has studied at Oxford University. He had won the first prizes in Quebec province which entitled him to study at the English university. This young lawyer held the view that the city of Quebec was not responsible and consequently he did not take any action against the city. He has sent me some details of this case and believes that the country should do something for his client. He has sent me the following letter in French:
Quebec, March 1-5, 1910. Mr. George Parent, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa,
Dear Mr. Parent,-I was pleased to hear that you had moved for an Order of the House asking for information concerning the innocent victims who, during the so-called Quebec riot in 1918 were killed or wounded by soldiers of His Majesty.
I represented at the coroner's inquest one of my fellow-countrymen of Murray Bay, who was one of the unfortunate victims; it was
young Edward Tremblay, then a student at the Technical school.
I now come to give you information, for I do not believe that a claim was forwarded to Ottawa in his case.
This Mr. Edward Tremblay was to complete his studies at the Technical school in June, 1918. He was a son of M.rs. Joseph Tremblay, a widow from River-Mailloux, Murray Bay, in the county of Charlevoix.
At the time of the so-called riot in Quebec, he was at home on a holiday. He came to Quebec on April 1st, the very day he was killed near Bagot street. He came by the Quebec and Saguenay, about five o'clock and during the evening, after supper he went for a walk with a cousin of his. It was while -thus walking that he was killed in the vicinity of Bagot street by a shot in the leg and another in the elbow.
The inquest positively established that neither of the wounds was deadly; according to the statement of Dr. Marois "there was no cause for his dying." In fact, if upon that occasion there had been an ambulance or somebody to give him emergency treatment, his case would not have been serious. However, having been wounded about ten o'clock, first aid was only given him about one o'clock in the morning by Dr. Marois himself. Unfortunately . he was then much exhausted and it was too late. He died in the morning of the day after, about eight o'clock.	.
I made numerous endeavours to get from the corporation of the city of Quebec some compensation in behalf of his unfortunate mother. On April 30, 191'8, I sent to His Honour the mayor and aldermen a registered letter applying for fair and reasonable compensation. They acknowledged my letter, and that was all. Then, seeing that I was of the opinion that the family was entitled to compensation on political grounds, I advised them to refrain from entering legal proceedings.
I would be grateful to you if you were willing to lay that information before the House when the question is debated. I really think this case is one of the most soul-stirring.
Thanking you in advance, I am,
Tours truly,



EDGAR ROOHETTE.

[Stage Direction]
Briefly, the foregoing letter contains the following facts. Edward Tremblay, the son of a widow, Mrs. Joseph Tremblay, of Riviere Mailloux La Malbaie, Charlevoix, was a student who would have graduated from the technical school in June, 1918. He arrived in Quebec on the first of April at about four p.m., and during the course of the evening was found dead as the result of a bullet wound in the leg and the elbow, the shooting having taken place in Bagot street. The investigation showed positively that neither of his wounds was mortal, and in the opinion of Dr. Marois the man's life could have been saved. Indeed, had an ambulance been on the spot, and had first aid been given this young man his case would not have -been even serious. He was wounded about ten o'clock in the evening ibut was not attended to in any way until about one o'clock the following -morn-
[Stage Direction]
ing, when it was too late to hope for his recovery. Owing to extreme weakness from loss of Iblood he died. The lawyer to whom I have referred thinks that this case is one of the saddest in his experience, and I think myself that the facts bear out this opinion. Another unfortunate case has been brought to my notice, and it is to my mind more serious than the other. If the former case appeals to the sympathy of the Government, the exceedingly sad circumstances which I am about to narrate will, I am sure, .meet with a still greater degree of sympathy and regret. I refer to the case of Avila Bloin, which was taken up by a lawyer of Quebec named Armand Lavergne, who instituted before the courts an action for damages against the city, on his behalf, for the sum of $140,000. Judgment has been rendered, the court dismissing the action on the ground that any responsibility in the matter must lie, not with the city of Quebec but rather with the country at large, or, in other words, with the Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a young man well educated, steady, and reliable who begins his career in life as the proprietor of a garage, attending to most of the work himself, and whose prospects in life have been very materially impaired as a result of the suffering which he has endured through no fault nor negligence of his own. I asked him to put in writing all the facts in connection with his case, and I shall give to the House a translation of his statement:
Rue Chevriere,
Parish of the Sacred Heart,
Quebec, P.Q.
Sir,-I wish to interest you in my case, which I am sure deserves special attention. I was unfortunate enough to be wounded on April 1st during the Quebec riots. I was hit in the right leg, and after two operations, I am obliged to walk with crutches since the leg has been amputated two inches below the knee. I declare upon my honour that the following is the true story of the events which occurred on the above-mentioned date.
On the night of April 1st, after having worked all evening at my garage at the corner of Des-glacis and D'Aguillon streets; this spot is quite remote from the scene of the riots.
I started for home about 11.40 p.m. On arriving at the Boulevard Tanglier I was ordered by two sentries to keep straight on. I had gone but a few steps when I heard a whistle, and I threw up my hands, thinking this to be the most prudent thing to do, since I understood no English. I retraced my steps, in order to make myself understood by the sentries who had just let me pass. Whilst I was in the act of turning I was fired upon and hit in the left leg. The leg was badly injured, and the soldiers wishing to prevent me from getting up, I presume, tied me to a post, in order to bandage my wound. I am under the impression that

they were not quite sane, because, instead of relieving my pain, they hit me on the head and in the face. Soon afterwards they carried me into a private house, and the military doctor gave orders for the ambulance to carry me to the Military Hospital. They amputated my leg without asking my consent or that of my parents, in spite of the fact that I had given them the telephone number of my home. 1 underwent treatment at the hospital for five months.
My leg was amputated twice, and I consider myself disabled to the extent of fifty per cent. It is now impossible for me to run a garage, and X have lost all hopes of the future. My incapacity X ascribe to the fact that the operation in question was so badly performed that specialists have advised me that I will find considerable difficulty in wearing an artificial limb.
I wish to call your attention to the fact that it would appear from the coroner's inquest that the officer commanding gave orders not to shoot after eleven o'clock. I was fired upon, a few minutes before midnight. I was alone, and if they had any reason to suspect me they might have taken me prisoner, and there was no necessity for shooting.
Tours very sincerely.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I asked this young man to state his case in writing because his interview with me was so painful, from the palpable suffering which he was enduring, that I could not prolong it. I can assure you that the experience is trying, to say the very least, to hear a man in the prime of life, well started in a prosperous business, relating a story of cruel torment, and when I could listen to his verbal statement no longer I requested him to present the facts in writing, assuring him that I should be pleased to bring them to the attention of the Government. I feel confident that if the hon. leader of the Government, the Minister of Justice, and other gentlemen on the other side of the House, could witness for themselves the sad plight of this young man, and hear from his own lips the pathetic story which he told me, they would have for him the same compassionate feeling as I had. I am sure that if they had seen him in person and heard his story they could not fail to regard it as a matter of strict justice that a man who has suffered altogether unnecessarily, and who has been deprived of his capacity to fulfil his career, deserves to be indemnified to an adequate extent.
Other cases are just as important and entitled to the same sympathy. I find that at the coroner's inquest the case of Alex. Bussieres was also presented. From the evidence of his wife, Regina Ferland, aged 22 years, it appears that upon the evening of April 1, the husband, aged 25 years, returned from work about 6.30 and asked his wife's permission to go to a pub-

lie meeting to be 'held by Mr. Armand La-vergne on Jacques Cartier Square. It was on Friday morning that she learned that her husband had been killed and that his body was at the morgue. Here was a man killed on Monday, April 1, and only on Friday morning did his wife hear that her husband is dead. She states positively that this man had in his possession a certain amount of money and a watch when he left home and that this property was never afterwards recovered or found. She also says under oath that her husband never carried weapons of any kind and that he never had any at the house.
Another case is that of F. X. Bourget. He was a worker in a shoe factory, and in his own evidence he says that he was engaged making shoes for soldiers. This is the way he was handled by them: He was walking along a certain street to go home when the soldiers fold him to turn around and go home by another route. If he did there would be some other soldiers stationed on that route who would order him 3 p.m. to turn around and go by the route along which he started first. He was about to obey the order, but the soldiers fired upon him and a bullet went through his jaw. He was transferred to the Hotel Dieu hospital, was five weeks without being able to woTk, and as a result of his injuries his earning capacity has been very much reduced.
Another case is that of George Boyte. This illustrates one of those cases which are quite [numerous in the province of Quebec, where young men begin working early in life because of the large families in that particular part of the country. They do as their fathers did. George Boyte is the son of one of the most industrious workers you can find anywhere. On that particular night, as was the custom of most of these young men, he went out to enjoy a game of pool or billiards. He had gone to a hall, had .spent the evening there and on his way home was fired upon. This is the information that I have to communicate to the House concerning him:	He was
seventeen years of age at the time of the riots. He was wounded about 10 p.m on April 1, 1918, at the corner of St. Valier and Laviolette streets. He had spent some time during the course of the evening at the Frontenac Hall, St. Roch. Because a number of soldiers were patrolling St. Joseph street, he was obliged to return home by way of St. Francis street, and whilst going through the crowd he was hit
by a rifle bullet in the elbow, with the result that his right arm is now useless owing to paralysis of the fingers. He is the oldest son of a laTge family, he has been disabled forever, and he should be entitled to some sympathy.
I referred a minute or two ago to 'the coroner's inquest. I may say that this inquest was held on the body of Honore Bergeron. I have, from the report of the coroner's inquest, the following concerning this man: His widow identified the body of her late husband, a carpenter, aged 44 years. She states:
On Monday, the day of the riot, my husband returned from work about six o'clock and had supper at home. He left after supper to go for his tool case. He returned about 9.30, when he told me that things were going badly on the boulevard. He went out shortly afterwards to look for the children, telling me that he would return shortly. During the course of the evening I heard that he had been arrested by the militia. On Tuesday and Wednesday I searched1 for him, and it was only on Thursday afternoon that I was asked to go to the morgue where I identified the corpse of my husband.
Madame Bergeron is the mother of six children, the eldest of whom is 19 years and the youngest ten months. Concerning this particular case, I had occasion, on a recent visit to the city of Quebec, to meet Dr. Leclerc, a physician of high standing, who told me that he had seen this occurrence, and he stated to me in plain language that Bergeron was at least 200 feet from the crowd when the bullet killed Mm. No doubt if further investigation takes place, we may obtain details which may lead the Government to help this widow by way of an indemnity.
The coroner's inquest was held on the body of this man and the verdict that was found was stated by the jury to be applicable to all the other cases. It is important and necessary that the country should know what the finding of the men who investigated this case was. For the information of the House and the country I may say that the Government was represented at that particular inquest by Major Gregor Barclay, an advocate of Montreal. The following is a statement of the findings of the jury with reference to the death of Ber geron, and this verdict applies to all the other cases:
Bergeron met his death at the comer of St. Valier, St. Joseph and Bagot streets on the night of Monday, April 1, 1918. He was killed toy a rifle bullet fired by the soldiers of His Majesty who were then on duty for the purpose of suppressing a riot.
[Stage Direction]
The jury is of the opinion that inasmuch as the persons killed on this occasion were innocent of all participation in, this riot, which was occasioned by the 'brutal and, tactless fashion in which the federal officers charged with the execution of the conscription law carried their instructions into effect, it will be the duty of the Government to indemnify in a reasonable fashion the families of the victims who were proved to be innocent and unarmed at that time, as well as to indemnify those who suffered, loss through this riot.
The jury expressed their profound regret that the good reputation of the peaceful and law-abiding citizens of St. Roeh and St. Sauveur has been placed in jeopardy by the thoughtless act of some young men and .of some evil inten-tioned men, probably strangers to this city, who endeavoured to make capital out of this trouble.
Among the members of the jury I find the following names: J. A. Lesage, alderman; Ed. Picthe, accountant; John Laroche, druggist; F. H. Levasseur, merchant; Nazaire, Fortier, manufacturer and bank director; J. G. Scott, who is the promoter and for a long time general manager of the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway; and Martin Monaghan, insurance agent.
If this is not enough, Mr. Speaker, to justify the Government giving these cases sympathetic consideration, I might perhaps remind them that in that period of our history between 1840 and 1850 they will find a precedent for granting indemnification- and the period between 1849 and 1918 is not a very long time in the life of a nation -subsequent to the Rebellion of 1837, the Government of that day thought fit to grant compensation to the people who suffered during that disturbance. We remember well what happened then. It took a few years before the Government could be persuaded to deal with the matter, but in 1849 it was decided that compensation should be granted, and among the most prominent men who supported this course we are proud to find the name of William Lyon Mackenzie, who, I believe was the grandfather of the present leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Undoubtedly there were difficulties in the way, and rather than attempt to present the case in my own words I had better let the historian relate what happened. I find that the question of rebellion losses, even for the rebels, had been the subject-matter of discussion for some time previous to 1849. Prior to 1841 the special Council of Lower Canada had passed an Ordinance, and the legislature of Upper Canada an Act, providing for compensation to the loyalists whose property had been destroyed by rebels.
In the first session of the Parliament of the United Provinces an Act was passed [Mr. Parent. 1
in amendment of the Upper Canada Act, including among those entitled to compensation people whose property had been wantonly or unnecessarily destroyed by the servants of the Crown, and on the 28th of February, 1845, an address was carried in the House of Assembly praying:
That His Excellency will be pleased to cause proper measures to be adopted in order to insure to the inhabitants of that part of this province, formerly Lower Canada, indemnity for just losses by them sustained during the rebellion of 1837-8.
To conform to this request a commission was appointed by Mr. Draper's Administration with instructions to discriminate between those who had taken up arms against the Crown and loyal subjects of His Majesty. On the 18th of April, 1846, the commission reported claims from 2,196 persons representing £241,965,105, and advised that £100,000 should cover the damages. No action was taken by the Government on that report.
Parliament was dissolved on the 6th of December, and a new Parliament assembled on the 25th of February. In the first session of 1848 nothing was done, but in the second session which opened on January 18, 1849, Mr. Lafontaine,-who had just been returned to power-brought in a Bill for the indemnification of persons whose property had been destroyed during the rebellion of 1837-8. This is the famous Re-hellion Losses Act of 12 Victoria, chapter 58. Lafontaine had made it plain that refusal to support some measure of compensation would probably break up the ministry which had been the choice of the people. This compensation to French Canadians, many- of whom had been actively or passively in revolt against England, roused afresh the old loyalty cry and social prejudices. Concessions to the French were regarded by the Tories as a kind of treason on a question which had been approved not only by the British members of Lower Canada but even by those in Upper Canada. The Bill passed on March 9, 1849, by a majority of 47 to 18.
I do not want to recall, Mr. Speaker, the terrible events which followed the passing of this Bill,-that those loyalists who did. not approve of the measure thought the best way to protect against it was to burn the Parliament buildings in Montreal. At the time Lord Elgin was subjected to such indignities and there were such violent disturbances that I do not think it in the interests of the case I am presenting to recite 'them.

I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government are in search of a precedent they will find it in the history of the period I have referred to. I have used the mildest language I can possibly think of in presenting the claims of these people, and all I am aiming at is to get for them a just and fair indemnity for what they have suffered. Happily there is a sentiment prevailing that both races in this country should unite as they did in the past under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it seems to me that one of the best means towards the realization of such unity would be to indemnify the persons whose cases I have brought to the attention of the House.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) (translation) :: Mr .Speaker, my hon.
friend from Quebec West (Mr. Parent) has presented his case with so much lability and force, his argument is so complete, that I only wish to say a word for the claim which he laid before this House. It is absolutely useless to discuss the cause of the conflict which took place in Quebec in 1918. It can be sought for in several directions, and can be judged from various points of view. Fot my part, I have always been of opinion that one of the principal causes of the trouble was the unjustifiable arrogance and conduct of certain federal government agents entrusted with the carrying out of the law. Whether that be the true cause of the trouble or not, there can be no doubt that those who were its absolutely innocent victims have a right to compensation.
The city of Quebec can in no way be held responsible, as the maintenance of order and peace within its limits had been taken from it and assumed by the military authorities. The municipal authorities of the city had ceased to have any control or responsibility. Everything was in the hands of the military authorities, and if in the performance of their duties they caused any damage, the Government is responsible for their actions. People who. had taken no part in the disorders were killed, others were wounded. Poor workmen who were coming back from their work, and who were absolutely obliged to go by these streets to reach their homes, were mortally wounded, without having done anything whatever which might render them in the slightest degree responsible for these events.
Mr. Speaker, the laws of justice should he abided by in time of war as well as in time of peace. So true is this, that when the Government or the military authorities have to take over a piece of land or private property for military purposes, they always give
therefore a fair compensation to the interested party. I maintain that a humain life is more valuable than a piece of land or a house. If, in the exercise of duties thought to be necessary for the restoration of peace, or for war purposes, the soldiers have had to take the lives of innocent men who had not voluntarily made themselves liable, the authorities and the Government are certainly obliged to pay an indemnity, a fair compensation, to those who depended upon these victims for their support. I believe that the principle need only to be stated to be recognized as sound.
The Government should inquire into each of the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Quebec West. It is possible that some case might deserve less consideration from the Government than other, but this can only be ascertained by a serious, impartial investigation; and the persons who have been injured without having done anything .entailing the slightest responsibility, have a right to be indemnified, and the country owes it to itself-it is a debt of honour-to pay them such compensation.
After all, there were expenditures during the war-I do not wish to give expression to any criticism, for it is neither the time nor place to do so-there were, I say, expenditures which many people in this country have criticized; there were many useless expenditures. The Government, I admit, have not been able to control every thing, but there has been so much money uselessly spent, that the claims submitted by my hon. friend from Quebec West to-day, should meet the sympathy of the Government and the sympathy of all right-minded people m this country.
The hon. member for Quebec West mentioned as a precedent the compensation which was paid to the victims of the rebellion of 1837-1838. The case of the victims of the Quebec disorders is much more appealing than that of the victims of 1837-1838. In 1837-1838, many were indemnified who had themselves taken part in the rebellion, who had taken a stand against the constituted authority; and yet it was thought proper ta pay them an indemnity along with the rest. In the present instance, the victims have taken no part whatever in the rioting or disorders which took place; they were struck without their having done anything that could bring upon them the fate which they met, and I believe that, under the circumstances, this House should concur in the opinion of my hon. friend for Quebec West and declare that some compensation should be paid these people.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, the question of compensation to the innocent victims of the Quebec trouble has been so fully and fairly dealt with by my two colleagues from that city that very little remains for me to say. However, I should like to direct the attention of the House to the case of one of my constituents who was injured during these troublous times. A man named A. Quart, residing on Champlain street, Quebec, was walking along St. Valier street on Sunday, March 31, 1918, accompanied by two young ladies. On reaching the corner of Blanchet street he was struck by a rifle bullet in the right shoulder and was seriously wounded, his life being seriously despaired of for a few days. The bullet was fired from a rifle in the hands of one of His Majesty's soldiers. ' The victim suffered considerable damage, which in a lawsuit which he took against the city of Quebec, he estimated at $1,200. This lawsuit was not proceeded with, because, as the member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) has just pointed out, a previous suit had been dismissed, on the ground, if I remember rightly, that the city of Quebec was not responsible; that as the injury had been occasioned by His Majesty's troops the Dominion of Canada should be liable for indemnification. I know this young man very well. He had a brother killed at the front in 1915; so he could not have had any evil intentions or ulterior motives in proceeding along St. Valier street. I am informed that at the time he was wounded he was at a considerable distance from the scene pf any trouble or from any troops, or any group of men who might in any conceivable way be called rioters.
In studying this matter I looked up the precedents, and naturally the first one which struck me was that of the Rebellion Losses Bill. I had intended to go into that at some length, but my hon. friend (Mr. Parent) has fully explained the purport of the Rebellion Losses Bill and has made clear to the House that in this case there is far more justice in the claim of the victims for indemnification than there could have been for the victims compensated under the Rebellion Losses Bill. At the time of the passage of the Rebellion Losses Bill the feeling of the people was running very high and it must have been extremely difficult for any Government, however well disposed, to convince its followers, particularly those from Upper Canada, that' any compensation should be paid to those whom

the people of Upper Canada almost unanimously condemned as rebels. Reading the debates of those days I came across some very curious statements, and if the House will bear with me I should like to read one or two as showing the state of feeling which existed in the country at that time and showing how very difficult it must have been to induce the people of Canada to pay any compensation. I quote from a leading article in the Montreal Gazette of February 16, 1849. The Montreal Gazette, I may say, was apparently the leading Tory paper even of that time. It states:
But if the ministry force on their resolutions, and carry them, we can tell them explicitly, that they never calculated on more baseless anticipations, if they expect that that is to end the matter. The vote of the House will be the signal for a resistance, which will end in the complete prostration of the French-Canadian race-a resistance which will be carried on so long as we remain under the British Crown, and as long after as necessary.
You will see, Sir, that at that time the resistance to payment of these claims was so great that a large portion of the inhabitants of this country was prepared to renounce allegiance to the British Crown in pieference to making payment. Although feeling ran high and the debates were somewhat acrimonious, the monotony was relieved to a certain extent by incidents such as I will cite in a moment. In the Montreal Gazette of February 23, 1849, we read of a Mr. Meyers having announced that he had received a resolution from a certain portion of Upper Canada, in which resolution a number of his supporters protested against this Bill. Then the article goes on to state:
Mr. Cameron requested permission to read another telegraphic communication from Belleville, a little different from the one just read. The hon. member then read a communication from Belleville, dated 20th Febuary, which said: " Tories met at half past twelve-Reformers present protested at one-had majority-passed two resolutions-when Orangemen rushed in with clubs and pistols, and dispersed meeting."
There is no doubt whatever that the Tories of that day were somewhat exercised over the proposition to pay any of these claims. In order to show exactly what were the claims and what was the manner of payment, I should like to read the resolutions as they passed the House on Thursday, March 1, 1849, as reported in the Gazette of March 2, 1849. There were six resolutions, only one of which, as it is the principal one, I will read:
And that the said losses so far only as they have arisen from the total or partial unjust, unnecessary or wanton destructions of the dwellings, property and effects of the said in-

habitants, and by the seizure, taking or carrying away of their property and effects, should be paid and satisfied:	Provided, that none of
the persons who have been convicted of high treason alleged to have been committed in that part of this province formerly lower Canada, since the first day of November, 1837, or who, having been charged with high treason, or other offences of a treasonable nature, and having been committed to the custody of the sheriff in the gaol of Montreal, submitted themselves to the will and pleasure of Her Majesty, and were thereupon transported to Her Majesty's island of Bermuda-shall be entitled to any indemnity for losses sustained during or after the said rebellion, or in consequence thereof.
Therefore, the ease is far stronger than that which occupies our attention at the present moment. There are other precedents also. For instance, after the rebellion of 1798 in Ireland, I read, as a matter of fact in this Montreal Gazette in looking pver a speech by Sir Alan McNab, that the people of Ireland were paid a certain indemnity. In 1853, there was passed in the British House of Commons an Act, chapter 38, to extend indemnities for malicious injury to properties in Ireland, and I understand that this Act or a modification thereof, is in force in Ireland to-day and has been frequently invoked of late. This Act, if I understand the matter aright, places on the community the burden of collecting sums to met these damages. That would not apply exactly in this case, but it recognizes the principle that public authority is responsible for damages caused by a riot.
There is another incident in the history of England, although I do not know that it applies very much to this case. If my recollection is good, in the fifties, a famous debate arose in Parliament with reference to a Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew who had been injured in some riots, I think, in Greece. He had lost a certain quantity of furniture, chairs, clothing, etc. His case was brought before the British House of Commons, and Lord Palmerston, who was at that time Prime Minister, considered it so important that he devoted to it a speech of five hours in length. This is the famous speech which he wound up by saying " Civis Britannicus sum," and in which he threatened Greece, or whatever state it was, with the might and Majesty of the British Empire unless this Portuguese was paid every cent of damages which he had suffered. I understand that, in spite of the fact that the claims were unjust, and also, that it was shown that hardly any compensation could be justified, the British House of Commons almost unanimously declared that, in cases of this kind, in cases of riot, public authority should be made 78
to pay for damages suffered by private citizens. Therefore, the same precedent should apply to those who have suffered damages in Quebec, and all the more because I think it can be conclusively shown that at least a large number of those who were injured during the riots in Quebec were innocent spectators and were in no way connected with the rioters. At any rate it seems to me that it is the duty of the Militia Department the Department of Justice and the Government to make a full and complete investigation into every one of the cases cited by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) and other casks which I have no doubt exist and which would doubtless be brought to the attention of any investigating body.


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there can, of course, be and there is no objection whatever to this motion being adopted and the papers being brought down. Having said that, I have, perhaps, said as much as can be expected from me with regard to this motion.
I will, however, permit myself to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that it does not appear from his recital of the different cases which he enumerated that the circumstances of those cases were brought to the attention of the department that would be concerned-in this case the Department of Militia and Defence- by any otheT method than the present motion. I am not affirming that it is not so, but I do not understand that his case rests on the facts that it was.
Upon a motion of this kind it must be obvious to the House that it is quite impossible that anybody should come here prepared to make answer with regard to the circumstances of the particular oases cited. 1 do not fancy that even the hon. gentleman himself expected that anybody here would be in a position to deal with those cases. The motion itself, of course, makes no reference to any particular case or cases, and so far as I am aware the hon. gentleman did not intimate in any way to the Government, and certainly not to me, what particular cases, if any, he intended to refer to. I fancy I am correct in saying that no such intimation was given to the Minister of Militia. I do not say this for the purpose of criticizing. I am not saying that the hon. gentleman was not within his right; I say it only for the purpose of making it perfectly cleai; that it is not possible in the nature of things for any one speaking on behalf of such department of the Government as may be particularly concerned or



on behalf of the Government itself, to make any answer as to the accuracy of the iiircum-stances as recited of the particular cases dealt with.
It is also to be pointed out that if the impression remaining with me after my careful following of the address of the hon. gentle man is correct, that he rests his case upon the ex parte statements either of the individuals who claim to have been affected or of those interested in enforcing a claim- and I am not suggesting that these people are necessarily not telling the truth. I think the hon. gentleman himself will agree with me that it would not be proper for this Government to determine to take action and disburse the moneys of the people of this country simply upon the basis of the statements that have been read to this House without opportunity for verification in any way. It is perhaps a little surprising, if those cases be really well founded, that those interested should have waited three years and should then address letters to members of Parliament and seek to bring about a remedy by submitting their claims to Parliament, which itself directly can bring no remedy to hear. As I have said, there is no objection to bringing down all the papers that bear upon the unfortunate incidents that occurred in the city of Quebec at the time referred to.
As to what I understand to be the general principle implied, at all events in the observations of the hon. gentleman who made the motion, and affirmed and put perhaps more distinctly by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), supported by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), I think no one will be surprised when I say that-with this motion upon the Order Paper one would not come here expecting to take up and discuss, still less to determine, the soundness or unsoundness of this proposition. I want to concede that it was put forward, if I may be permitted to say so, in what seemed to me very suitable and very moderate language, and I am not prepared to say at the present moment that that proposition is not one calling for consideration or to say the very least, a proposition in whose support possibly much that is well founded may he said. With regard to that proposition I can at the present moment only say-and I fancy that the strongest supporter of the motion would expect no more of me under present circumstances-that I shall certainly be glad to give consideration to it, and to approach it with a desire simply to look into the justification or lack of justi-
fication that may be found for it. Of course as to whether the general proposition should be accepted as being sound-that general proposition being, as I understand it, that, if you assume on the one hand that the action of the Government was not subject to criticism but was a necessary action in the general interest, and on the other hand, that the particular persons injured were perfectly innocent persons, under those circumstances it would be proper to assimilate the injury done to those persons to the damage suffered by individuals -whose properties are taken in the general interest, and that therefore proper compensation for those injuries would be justified as being an indemnification to a party suffering by some perfectly proper action necessarily taken in -the public interest-I did not, of course, come here expecting to be asked to pass a final opinion upon a question of that kind, and I can say nothing more except that I shall be glad to give consideration, and to ask my colleagues to give consideration, to the proposition that has been put forward, and to weigh carefully what has in support of that proposition been so moderately and at the same time so clearly put forward. The papers will be brought down.
Mr. HENRI E, LAVIGUEUR (Quebec) (translation) :	Mr. Speaker, Although I
have not listened to the whole discussion just carried on, I would beg leave to make a few observations upon this important question.
In the first place I should say that I have been pleased to hear the right hon. the Minister of Justice declare that he will take the matter under consideration and that, if possible, the unfortunate victims of the disorders of two years ago in Quebec, or their relatives will be compensated. Without, any intention of censuring or finding fault in any way whatsoever as to the action then taken by the Militia Department, I believe that the deplorable incidents alluded to would probably never have come to pass in Quebec, had a little more prudence and, especially, a little more moderation been shown. Had the Government buildings been protected in the way we had suggested; had the registrar's office -in the Auditorium building-been protected according to our recommendations, when it was reported that a riot had been started, and that the registrar's office would likely be its principal object; had, in short, the appeal then made by the mayor and the municipal authorities of Quebec, been heed-

ed, I think such incidents -would not have taken place or, at any event, not on so large a scale.	*
I believe it would be absolutely proper, under the circumstances, for the Government to indemnify the victims of this unfortunate affair who have suffered so greatly, and especially the innocent victims, peaceful people who were wounded without any provocation whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) "moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act, chapter sixty-one of the Statutes of 1910, by providing that the said Act shall also apply to ships carrying goods from any port outside of Canada to any port in Canada, and to goods carried by such ships or received to be carried by such ships.
He said: I should not take up the time of the House with this resolution were it not necessary, under the rules, to precede by resolution a Bill having reference to trade and commerce. Under the advice of Parliamentary Counsel, therefore, I was compelled to put this resolution on the Order Paper. I may remark that this resolution was on the Order Paper last year, when it was suggested that the matter might be allowed to stand, as it was in the nature of a notice of motion, so that any interested parties might have an opportunity to prepare any views which they might desire to express on the subject. It is not my intention to argue the matter at great length, but rather to bring to the attention of the House some reasons for the resolution and the Bill which will be founded upon it. I shall ask the House, when I have completed my remarks, to permit me to introduce the Bill, and shall suggest that the Bill be referred to one of the standing committees, such as the Committee on Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines, in order that any one desirous to do so may have an opportunity of presenting any opinions on the subject involved. I am quite aware that this resolution deals with a matter of a controversial character, and that there are interests in Canada that may consider their rights to be infringed and may desire to be heard. I shall base the appeal for the introduction of the Bill upon certain reasons which I shall briefly state. It has been the custom of owners and charterers of ships to insert in bills of lading special clauses contracting themselves out of liability for damage to 78i
goods carried. This practice has been the cause of the complaint, if I may so term it, which shippers have advanced in connection with this matter. Shippers contend that it has not been possible for them to obtain justice in regard to claims for damaged goods carried in ships because of the forms used in bills of lading, and in a moment or two I shall give to the House a striking case in point. I understand that, according to the old common law of England, ship-owners are liable for the proper and safe delivery of goods, this liability being limited only bv certain well-understood exceptions. But the practice which I have just mentioned, of inserting special clauses in bills of lading, has largely resulted in a departure from this well-known principle. There is no bill of lading common to all countries. Every country has a different form to suit its own purposes, and I presume that it will be a good many years at least before a universal form of bill of lading will be adopted. This diversity in the use of forms also adds to the difficulty; and shippers have found that when goods have arrived in port in a damaged condition the only way by which they could have their claims properly considered was to libel the ship. Now, it is obvious that any persons or firms libelling a ship in the event of the case going against them they will pay for the time the ship may have been delayed. This of course is a very heavy responsibility, especially where the amount of the claim bears no reasonable comparison to the risk involved. This question was taken up by the Dominion Royal Commission, of which the right hon. leader of the House (Sir George Foster) was chairman. That commission submitted a report, a copy of which I have on my desk, and to which I shall briefly refer. In section 595 the report refers to this question, stating that the commissioners have looked into the matter with the utmost care, having studied the laws as they obtain in the various dominions, in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, and declares that frequently ship-owners endeavour-I shall give the exact words of the report-
To contract themselves out of liability for loss or damage in respect of the goods which they carry, particularly from the United Kingdom to the self-governing dominions-
I desire the 'House to pay particular attention to the following words:
to an extent unfair in itself.
This very important commission which travelled all over the Empire, very carefully taking exhaustive evidence on the sub-
[Stage Direction]
ject, states that in its opinon the practice in question was one that was unfair, adding:
In our consideration of this question we have studied the views tendered in evidence hy shipowners, as well as hy shippers, and we have also had the opportunity of considering the discussion on the question which took place at the conference on merchant shipping legislation in 1907 between representatives of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
The report goes on to say:
It is admitted also that until a comparatively recent date ship-owners generally accepted these liabilities, and did not attempt to contract themselves out of them.
At this point I may observe that responsible lines operating regularly between various ports in the world seldom try to contract themselves out of liability, hut dramp ships and small lines that do not call regularly, simply picking up cargo and carrying it here and there as opportunity offers, frequently take advantage of the special contracts superimposed upon their bills of lading, and thus cause a loss to shippers.
Mr. NESBITT:: How could we exercise control over, tramp ships by any law we might enact?


Mr. STEVENS:: That is exactly what this Bill proposes to do.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What would be the use of passing a Bill if we could not enforce it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Mr. DUFF:: Could they not have libelled the ship and put up a bond? Would that not have protected the owners of the ship?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They could have libelled the ship; that is quite right but the owners would not consent to the bond. They said: No, you can libel our ship and we will wait till the case is tried but you must incur all the risk of demurrage. That is exactly the method employed by the owners of such vessels. They know that the average person will not libel a ship and incur the risk. Virtually there is no reasonable possibility of a shipper securing any-redress under the present law.
Now, it -may be claimed, and is claimed by many, that if we pass this amendment there will be a tendency to drive shipping away from our ports. I have under my hand a statement that several large importers in the United States who desired to foring shipments through Vancouver- and the same thing will apply to the eastern ports-refrained from doing so simply because they found they had no protection such -as that given to them by the Harter Act of the United States, and which I propose should be given to them under this Bill.
As I stalled at the outset, Mr. Speaker, 1 have no desire to labour the question or to argue it in detail, -but sim-ply to ask the House to accept this explanation and permit me to introduce the Bill. T'heQ I would suggest, if indeed it is open for me to do- so, that thp Bill should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals -and Telegraph Lines, so that all-parties interested may ha-ve an opportunity to be heard. I- -merely wish to have a fair, frank -and -careful consideration of the question and the principle involved in the Bill which I desire to introduce.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I did not hear the hon. member's- concluding remarks. Is he asking the assent of -the House to introduce -a Bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have stated Ithat iit was necessary for me to precede the introduction of the Bill with this resolution. If the resolution does not pass, I cannot introduce the Bill, and I have asked the House to kindly pass the resolution so that I may proceed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out to the hon. member that in no case would it be proper to introduce a Bill under "Notices of Motion." I have not -seen the Bill, and the question arises-which I do not -no-w pass upon-as to whether his Bill may be one affecting trade. If so, under the rules, of the House it would of course have to-be preceded by a resolution and be consid-

ered in committee. But this resolution is no different from any other resolution which is moved under Notices of Motion and it merely calls for an expression of opinion of the House. But before passing an opinion on whether the Bill the hon. member has in mind is one affecting trade, I would point out to him that the only way in which he can introduce his Bill is by giving notice under "Introduction of Bills."	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, might I
have the privilege of a further remark? Before putting this motion on the Order Paper I consulted the Parliamentary Counsel, who advised me to take this course, which I have strictly followed.
Mr. iSPEAKEK:	The hon. member is
entirely under a misapprehension as to the nature of the advice he received. In no case could he 'introduce the Bill under Notices of Motion. I have not passed a final opinion on the question whether this Bill is one affecting trade, for I have not seen it, but it would be necessary in any event to put his notice on the Order Paper under Introduction of Bills.
Mr. 'STEVENS: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution go into 'Committee of the Whole?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That also would not be in order.


George Green Foster: The object my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has in view is a very meritorious one from some points of consideration, but no doubt there are interests which will run counter to the idea the hon. gentleman proposes to put into legislation if his Bill meets with the approval of the House. But in the endeavour to get his Bill where divergent views can be submitted and the whole matter fought out, it would he necessary fpr him to make his motion according to the rules of the House in the form of asking for leave to introduce a (Bill and to put it upon the Order Paper. So I think my hon. friend had better just simply let this motion drop and put the necessary and regular notice on the Order Paper. Then in the course of two or three days it will be reached and we can take it up in the regular form.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my only
idea is to follow the rules, and that is exactly what I was trying to do. In view of the ruling of the Chair and the advice of the Acting Prime Minister, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw this 
motion and endeavour to bring it within the rules.
Motion withdrawn.



CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

[Stage Direction]
MOTION BY Mr. BURNHAM THAT THEY BE PROHIBITED.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the reported statement by the Reverend Ben Spence, that another Prohibition Referendum in Ontario would cost the prohibitionists five million dollars ($5,000,000), and in view of the fact that such immense sums tend to the corruption by patronage, and otherwise, of press and people arid to the destruction of public liberty and public morals, and in view of the reported collection of party funds for the Farmers' Party and parties, and in view of the fact that a coming struggle in Canada will probably be between the owners of land and the employers of labour and in view of the charges made against other parties in respect of party funds, it is desirable that all campaign funds be prohibited and made a criminal offence and that an amendment of the Criminal Code be made to that effect.
He said. Mr. Speaker, it is altogether top common in matter of this kind, involving general principles such as this does, to meet them, not by argument but by scoffing or some other means of general entertainment, as laughter and sneers, and so to withdraw public attention from their serious nature, in due time this course being treated as a precedent to be followed when some serious business is before the country. It cannot be denied that at the present time there is very serious unrest and discontent in Canada. My charge involved in this resolution is that certain persons are stirring up discontent and apprehension in order to seize power and the advantages accruing therefrom to the detriment of a portion of Canada, chiefly the province of Ontario.
We are not accustomed to arguing things at large in this country or to dealing with them in that general way which is the practice in older countries. People are apt to hurry on without understanding the value of a basic general principle, not knowing, indeed, that a few general principles, especially in statecraft or public conduct, determine the whole principle of government. If they realized that, they would watch the general principles and pay correspondingly little attention to the details. But people are more .carried away in this country by notices they see in the newspapers of some particular details of matters or measures that are before the House or before the country than they are concerned

about the general principles to which these refer or which they trench upon. I assume it will not be denied-that all great movements against the welfare of the State are founded upon corruption and the means of corruption. The chief means of corruption is money, and the value of money in large sums is in the wholesale character of the assault upon the welfare of the State. There can be no objection to. a constituency's managing its own affairs and paying what it likes in the way of expenses of its members. But when that movement becomes national and interests of a wide and national and general character may combine and make assaults upon individual constituencies, it simply means that at some time or another they will gain control of the State for their own ends, all because the principles of a general and national campaign fund has been observed and has not been attacked. It is easy in that way, and it has been easy in the past, for those who have had designs upon the country to make their way. It only remains, as my hon. friend on my right did yesterday, to tsay that everybody knows, every member knows, that funds are spent illegitimately in constituencies, even without the candidate's knowledge. That, of course, I repudiated yesterday in rising to a point of order. But it involves the honour of every man in the House, and if it is true it shows a rottenness and corruption of mind in the average candidate which is beyond belief. It shows that he has a gateway through which this corruption to which I have referred may pass with ease into the general pockets of the country, with ruin to the country and to the people.
It is useless for any part of the population to set itself up above any other part and say, as was well pointed out by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) yesterday, et we are holier than thou.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in referring to a previous debate during this session. I hope also that he will not go so far as to cover ground which has already been covered this session; his resolution trenches upon a subject which has already been before the House.


John Hampden Burnham: I withdraw the remark with reference to a speech made during this session, Mr. Speaker. I simply say that no one part of the population should use language such as " we are holier than thou" to any other part of the population. To presume that two great parties
in this country and all the people who belong to those two great parties are corrupt and willingly corrupt while a new party which has just arisen has come forward for the express purpose of doing away with corruption by the very same means with which they charge the other people with having incurred and enacted corruption, is something that only a very simple people and a very simple party would attempt or allow. The presumption that the old parties have in the past done things with the aid of money in a large fund which they should not have done applies equally to this new party. For them and others to say that a campaign fund is wrong and productive of great harm in one case but all right in the other is to beg the question and to show that they are more inclined to proceed by a policy of bluff than by one of reason and common sense. I myself think, as has been demonstrated historically in the past, that a great national fund is an impropriety. It is a wrong thing; it is unnecessary; it is a source of corruption and danger to the country. As I remarked a few minutes ago, there is no objection to the people of a constituency paying the expenses of their own member. But there is the very greatest possible objection, Mr. Speaker, to a nation-wide campaign fund. That is what I am objecting to; it is dangerous in the extreme.
, We have only to remember what happened in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. At that time, when Spain had determined to conquer England; when Spain had stirred up in the kingdom of Scotland great discontent; when Mary Queen of Scots was a prisoner in England and appealing for the fulfilment of certain rights which she said .she had to the Crown; when the Netherlands were at war with France and with (Spain and were being "assisted directly and indirectly by England; when Ireland was at war with England and had inflicted upon England in the battle of Blackwater the greatest defeat she had ever experienced in Ireland-how was it that the malcontents and those who sought to inspire England gathered themselves together and furthered their cause without incurring the punishment of treason? By means of lampoons; by moans of jokes and all sorts of scoffing and laugh? ter which were apparently intended as jokes, but which really covered up the malicious intent, the malignant intent, the corrupt intent, of those who circulated them. Burleigh, the chief minister of Elizabeth, was not, however, to be bluffed by these

tilings, and he said in some well-known instances that they might be jokes, but they would be provided ^gainst as if they were serious, and I think that advice was good. We know the possibilities of campaign funds, and it is for us as patriotic Canadians to provide against them as if they were serious. We know that few people, who have designs upon the liberties of a country or whose intention it is to possess themselves of the control of that country, would be 'So silly, or stupid, or short-sighted as to proceed directly to the object that they have in view. They would begin by a flank or indirect movement, as we see at the present time some of these flank and indirect movements producing in the minds of the people the first idea which they were intended to produce, namely, apprehension and discontent. I will proceed to illustrate how one of these movements is brought about. You are well aware, Sir, that if men have to withstand grave movements which they plainly see and have set themselves against and have prepared themselves in their own defence against, they will acquit themselves much better, much more amiably and consistently than they would if they were disturbed by some sudden pin-prick of which they had no notice or which they did not understand, but which had suddenly roused them to wrath and antagonism. That is just the artifice that has been adopted in Canada today, and we had an example of it here this last week. Miles Vokes, president of the Dominion Alliance, stated hat the policy of the Dominion Alliance was that it should be its brother's keeper, whether that brother wanted it or not. In other words, they, having made misuse of the voluntary and benevolent idea of sacrificing one's self in order to take care of the moral's good conduct and general benefit of somebody else, having sacrificed themselves to attain a certain end, and they intend to sacrifice the other man and seize power over him and make him do what they wish. That is to say, they are to be their brother's keeper in the sense of having him in jail, and once the people recognizes the fact that it is open to a party or a portion of the people to come forward and say:	You have a right to be your
brother's keeper, and if he does not want you to be his keeper, you have a right to make him; that, of course, is slavery. That is the principle which this man and the Dominion Alliance have laid down. They are determined to seize power and to exercise their power, and they are just as treasonable in their intentions as any other body which wishes to overturn the constitution, 
the general principle of Government, the general principles that safeguard the freedom and liberties of the people. It is idle to say that majorities rule.. The majority rules only just so long as it can rule, because where you have a large compaign fund, and an insidious minority and a designing leader and a so-called alliance, by means of false representations, misrepresentations, dangling before the public things that are not so, you can bedevil the situation and make the people believe anything. As a consequence, it is just like acting in a bargain, disingenuously, dishonestly and unfairly. These people say: We want these things; we have decided to have them; and they proceed by means of any method they can possibly conjure up. The honesty of the thing never appeals to them; they know nothing and they care nothing about that. A common dogfight, or a fight in the bear-pit, or a prizefight is a model of fair *play and virtue alongside the acts which these people will permit themselves to do and which they will do in order to gain their purposes, because they piously and sublimely smile and say that it is for the general benefit, without any regard to whether the other people want it or not. It becomes so far from the general benefit that it turns out to be chiefly for the benefit of the promoters; and when people having enormous campaign funds at the back of their efforts, it is the campaign fund and not the liberty and well-being of the people that they have chiefly in view.
The Rev. Ben Spence has announced that $5,000,000 will be the probable cost of a referendum in Ontario. $5,000,000 means over $60,000 for each constituency, and the man who says to the people of this country that the expenditure of that moneyJs to be legitimate, is telling what he knows to be a lie. A large portion of this money is to be distributed-and nobody c.ould convince me to the contrary-for the benefit of the distributors. $60,000 for each constituency. There never was a campaign fund in Canada that amounted to one-fifth of that for the whole of the Dominion. Yet these same pious frauds will tell us that all that has gone before has been covered with corruption ; they alone are the true, the really good and the beautiful, and they have the impudence to say: Since we know we are so and we are well provided with money, we will put it all over you and put you under our feet and make you do as we please. Therefore, I say that a great campaign fund such as this is against the good morals and the liberty of the people of this country, and I am well advised in saying so.

It is a well-known fact that for many years the Y.M.C.A gathered large sums for the purpose of extending its work as a branch of social service, and beginning, as the founder of that society did, by saying that it was for the furtherance of Christian work, it acquired the respect and support of the public at large. But any one who will follow it up will find that in the course of time the religious part sank into abeyance. The young people did not want too much religion, and they would not have it. You "will observe that religious teaching is away down in the list of the attractions of the Y.M.C.A., and anybody who knows much about the Y.M.C.A. would know that the Christian meetings, the Bible classes and prayer meetings, were attended by barely a corporal's guard, while the gymnasium, the basket-ball team and things of that kind were very well patron-' ized. Public lectures were not looked at. It was impossible to get the young men to attend them. They wanted to enjoy themselves, and nobody would blame them much. In course of time the Y.M.C.A extended the social service idea. After having pointed out how detrimental to the welfare of the country billiards and pool were, they adopted billiards and pool in their programme of attractions, and now you can play billiards and pool in the Y.M.C.A. It was pointed out that the Y.M.C.A. did not pay their full portion of the taxes, claiming that they were a religious institution and were therefore exempt. The people behind the Y.M.C.A were mean enough to profit by that exemption.
I prophesied that the time would come when that small, petty meanness of soul would eat into them and destroy them. It has destroyed them, because they found at their convention in Toronto last year that they could not get along "with social service as the chief end of it, and that they would have to found their future and their whole effort on something else than fees, and they then and there resolved and announced that in future the Y.M.C.A and its principles would be founded, not upon -fees, but upon service. In other words, these young men, instead of being brought up to believe that they were an example to all the Test of mankind, to the mass of the people, to the ragtag and bobtail, to the poor who play their little games in the ditches or any place they can find well, these young nabobs, maintained partly and very largely at public expense, and as objects of charity, had to give up those ideas.
The Y.M.C.A.'s, which were created for the money they could squeeze out of the public, ignored the fact that if they had been worth anything at all, and had had any manhood, they would have offered the advantages of their institutions to the poor who were not able to afford to pay for them. But no, their teaching had not been that. They had in their hearts that meanness and canker which would shrivel them up and destroy them, as it- did. Though millions had been collected, though to all intents and purposes the movement was increasing and becoming exceedingly strong, yet at their convention last year they changed the basis of their whole system, because one ounce of merited blame could blow the whole structure to pieces, and it did so.
Then take these pious and pretentious schemes in other directions for the welfare, say, of the farmer. The Farmers' Organization have adopted the rule that nobody who is not a farmer could join their organization, simply to protect their own interests. They do not say: Come along with us and seize the reins of government. No, they unfurl the flag of some benevolent scheme, some meriltricious humbug, and say: Subscribe largely to the great campaign against corruption, and by means of the campaign against corruption they will get into power, and then they will promote their own agricultural interests, and they will tell us all the time that it is for the benefit ot Canada, while at the same time they would not allow any one who is not a farmer .to join them lest some small portion of their effort might be for the general benefit of Canada, and the Farmers' party do not desire that. That is one of the singular things that is presented in this movement a!t the present day, but if anybody wants to get a nice little peep into the action of this kind of people, and see1 how ready they are to destroy the liberties of the people for their own ends, they have only to look at the Ontario Temperance Act, which is now being both promulgated and amended to perfection, and is double copper-bottomed and riveted so that there is no escape. Some benevolent people connected with the movement would even have flogging provided as a penalty, and I think it should be, because 'then some of these people would be the first to he flogged. Let me show the condition of society in the province of Ontario, a portion of ithe Dominion of Canada, by reading to you subsection

(2) of section 61 of the Ontario Temperance Act, Chap. 50, which say,s:
All information or complaints for the prosecution of any offence against any of the provisions of this Act	 may he made
without any oath or affirmation to the truth thereof.
Any mean sneaking informer, or other blackguard, is good enough to bring a complaint against the finest lady or gentleman in the land. * Any one who knows or cares about British liberty would not tolerate any such thing for a moment. While the people of Ontario do not understand it, by a sort of Nemesis Sir William Hearst met his fate and went down to that disgrace which he well deserved. After the case has been brought .to court on the information of somebody who need not say that he was speaking the truth, because ten to one he was not, 'there is no way of getting back at the wretch that gave the impious information. Section 83 provides that.
In proving the sale or disposal, giving, purchasing, or receiving gratuitously or otherwise, or consumption of liquor, for the purpose of any proceeding relative to any offence under this Act, it shall not he necessary to show that any money actually passed, or any liquor was actually consumed, if the magistrate or justice or justices hearing the case is or are satisfied that a transaction in the nature of a sale or other disposal, giving, purchasing or receiving, actually took place or that any consumption of liquor was about to take place.
Theire is no evidence required if the absolute judge on the bench in his serene majesty is satisfied that the party, if not guilty, would be guilty if he had a chance. Not in the whole history, I would not say of jurisprudence, because I do not wish to insult the history of law, but noit in the [whole history of informers from the beginning of the world was there any such contemptible camouflage as that, or such a piece of outrageous bluff. They are doing this in the very face of the people, who think, by reason of their protests and piety, that there is some little honour and decency and justice left in them, when there is not. The day will come when they will be thrown into the garbage can, but in the meantime they can do this country incalculable damage, and it is against that I wish to protest. Bolshevism in the same disregard of. the fundamentals of liberty and order. It is simply making up your mind that you wantsomething and you are going to have it; and as heretofore in the history of the world it has been wise for men to pretend that they were right whether they were or 
not, since there was always something in the moral value and weight of such an assertion, so the Bolshevist pure and simple states that he will bring about what he desires by such means as he may care to use. And while he will make the rivers run with blood, he will point to the few goods things which he will do,-because, after all, it is only a great blackguard who cannot do some few good things. He will point to some of the few good things which he will have brought about, as, for instance, the overthrow of absolutism and autocracy. But he will have to admit, nevertheless, that he did not proceed according to any principle of justice or law except his own sweet will; and we have in Bolshevism precisely what we have in the actions of the Dominion Alliance, without any difference whatever. I say that they are creating in the minds of the people of the country an indifference to utterly irregular proceedings and principles, and when the people become accustomed-to disregard the fundamentals of law and justice and the ancient practice of these principles, they will throw them to one side; and from having become temperance fanatics, they will bloom forth as full-fledged Bolshevists, because they will have learned their lesson. They will have learned that it is not necessary to regard the present liberties of the people, or to consider the liberties that have been
Tu n	past- Their attitude will be
this: \\hat we want is right; we-must have it, and we will have it;" and they will proceed to get it by great campaign funds or other means of corruption and by force Ihey will argue that the end justifies the means, especially if the end be what they want. This is the principle which will be inculcated and drilled into the minds of the people. At the present time the great complaint of the farming community is that labour is too expensive, and that it is so high that the cost of production has made farming a non-paying industry.
Mr. CALDWELL; We are objecting to farm machinery costing so much on account of the duty there is on it.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he is satisfied with the price of labour?


Mr. CALDWELL:: Yes, and I hire labour myself.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the whole farming movement satisfied?	'


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am speaking only for myself.


John Hampden Burnham: I can tell the hon. gentleman that unless the farming community, that is to say, the Farmers' party, have gone back on their platform and their principles-which, of course, is possible they have said time and time again, and Hansard frequently records the assertion, that the cost of production, owing to the price of labour, is so high that they cannot make farming pay, and that the great increase in wages has acted as one of the most serious drawbacks to the prosecution of agriculture. No one will deny that they [DOT] have made this statement. The directors of labour, and labour itself throughout the country, say very truly that the cost of consumption is so great that labourers must have their wages increased from time to time, and they allege that in many cases they are near to the bread line. They say that it is imperative that the people of the country should seriously consider their circumstances, because as a rule it is assumed that labour works 313 days in the year, which it does not and cannot in this country; that is, not.considering the mechanical part of labour alone but the labouring element. The mass of every day outdoor workingmen have an extremely hard time of it owing to the weather, and consequently they are nearer to the bread line than any other class of people. The day will come when the farmer who holds the land and now seeks to get legal and governmental control of the country will be the only person that will be opposed to the man who wants higher wages. And since the farmer's cry is that higher wages is the chief source of his complaint, while the labourer finds, in the high cost of farm produce and the food he has to buy, the principal element of his hardships, you will have the farmer or the owner of the land at daggers drawn with the labourer and the employer of labour; and when men realize that they may say to themselves: "Stand not upon the order of your going, but go and get what you want, for you can have as big a corruption fund as you like, and disregard all the old and time-honoured principles of moral conduct and religion." When we [DOT]have reached this pass, Mr. Speaker, then I say we shall have paved the way to civil war. And without being the slightest bit apprehensive of exciting ridicule !I tell you solemnly that in this country, indeed, on this continent, just for the very reasons I have indicated, especially by reason of the
turmoil and discontent stirred up by those people who want great campaign funds, and who zealously disregard the liberties of the people, we are more than likely to have civil strife. Under these chaotic circumstances people do not appeal to elections; they do not appeal to governments; ^ they do not appeal to public opinion. How can they appeal to public opinion when that opinion has discarded all regard for the principles of justice, and when every man feels that he can get no consideration? Under these conditions, Sir, the discontented man will say in his heart, "T will get what I want if I have to seize it"; and that is the condition of affairs to which present events are leading up. This disastrous impasse will be brought about and financed by great national campaign funds; it never could take place except by the aid of such funds. And therefore I say that the Liberal and Conservative parties, the Farmers' party, and the people generally will be well advised to heed the signs of the times, to wrest from the Farmers' party and from those who can foment this sort of disturbance the weapons at their disposal, and to withdraw from Ben iSpence and all people of his ilk, who are prepared to undertake the gratuitous keep of their brothers, whether their brothers so desire or not, the power of having vast sums at their command for the purpose of disregarding the principles of justice and liberty, and creating disturbances that must inevitably tend to civil war. For thjs is what their machinations will lead to.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should show some of the old fashioned patriotic feeling in this House. The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Gould) admitted yesterday that in 1911 the suspicion was that the country had been flooded by a great national corruption fund. All you have to do is to get the idea the corruption funds are afloat and you have the public shivering and trembling and believing that they are about to be bribed. You have given them the high cost of living, you have put them in the bread line and then you offer them a large corruption fund. Everything that will possibly develop such a condition is in this country and if those who are fairly well versed in the history of the British Empire to cast their eye over this history, what do they see? The same conditions arising in Canada that arose, and produced ' such disastrous results before. Mankind is very much the same all over. It does not do to trust anybody. If, during the

course of a long life they succeed in behaving themselves no doubt they will pass on to their reward but it is well for us not to give credit to professions when a farmer makes the claim that he is entitled to a great campaign fund. When he says that in his hands it is a campaign fund and that in our hands it is a corruption fund what he states is false and must be regarded with suspicion. A large central organization, whether actuated by a political, a prohibition or any other idea, even if it were sincere, or even if it were densely ignorant and sincere, or even if it might in time succeed in doing some good, might become the victim of designing people who, having seen it built up and erected, might make use of it for their own purposes and would proceed to do so. Remove the weapons and you remove the danger. It is for us to do that and not to listen to any 5 p.m. professions at all. Let every constituency, if it wants to, pay its own expenses.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Thank you.


John Hampden Burnham: If that is what the bon. gentleman is thanking me for, I will give him something to thank me for. The country wants no more national corruption funds and we are not going to have them whether they may be for the Liberal party, the Conservative party or the Farmers' party. And we are not going to have any fancy statements that are not in conformity with the law at all. Behind some of these statements there may lurk a great deal but from what we see in front of them it is not worth while to go behind them. There is nothing about them that is extremely attractive, or pretty. The people of this country are well aware of what the condition of affairs is but they are a confiding people. They are apt to think sometimes, especially when they are disquieted and harassed by high taxes that they had better shake themselves together and bring about a change. It may be so but this is the time of danger. Looking to those who are courting your approval it is well to see that their professions are not too great because my opinion is that the more piety a man professes the more dangerous he is, that the real saint is the man who is discovered by means of his goodness, not by means of his pretensions. The man who is too good feels that if he does not take hold of humanity by the neck and shake it until it is put into proper condition, the universe will be shaken to its foundations and that God who gave us liberty will find out the
	,,
mistake He has made from the professions of the prohibitionists and perhaps the farmers.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have seconded this resolution of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Burnham) more for the purpose of allowing him to get the resolution before the House than for anything else. While I do agree with a considerable amount that the hon. gentleman has said, I do not agree with all the sentiments expressed in his speech. I think there are campaign funds and campaign funds. Where a campaign fund is used for political or other corruption of any kind it becomes a menace to the public. But a campaign fund, in my opinion, is necessary to some extent in every great movement provided it is used legitimately. To that extent I do believe that it is necessary to have a campaign fund. Where a campaign fund, such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned in connection with the prohibition movement in Ontario, of something like $5,000,000, is used to influence people to vote for anything that they do not believe in, it becomes a corrupting influence. I do say that this is an immense campaign fund and I do not think it could be used legitimately for the purpose for which it might be raised. We know that in connection with the forward movement of the churches the great fund which has been collected is one which would not be used for corrupting influences. Therefore, we cannot say that every campaign fund would be used for such a purpose. Campaign funds are all necessary in political campaigns, I do not wish to discuss the resolution but I only wished to put myself on record in regard to the matter with which it deals.
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton, N.B.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer -a few remarks in regard to this resolution. I was very much pleased to hear the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) declare at the outset that he had no objection to the electors in any constituency paying the expenses of their candidate in an election campaign. As far as I am aware this is the only thing that has been done by the New Progressive Party up to the present time, and as far as I know it is the only thing that is proposed to be done.
But, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's remarks are not very consistent with his resolution, because there he states that all campaign funds be prohibited. Now, if he

will make his resolution read, "that all campaign funds, except for legitimate election expenses, be prohibited," I will hold up both hands in hearty support, because that is what I believe in and I think that is what every member of the Progressive Party believes in,-that there shall not be one dollar of our campaign funds used for anything but illegitimate purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to see hon. members are able to get a little comfort out of a slip of the tongue. An Irishman is allowed to speak once and explain himself afterwards-there is a certain amount of Irish in me; also a little Scotch,-although it is not distilled Scotch. I meant of course to use the words "legitimate purposes."
Another remark my hon. friend made was that you can make the people believe anything. I assume he believes that or he would not have made some of the statements he uttered this afternoon. A certain circus man has said: You can fool all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time. But I would warn the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that he cannot fool all the people all the time.


John Hampden Burnham: It is a circus surely
that he would quote from.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: : Referring to the hon. member's statement that he is willing to allow constituents to pay their candidate's legitimate expenses, I would like to refer briefly to my own election. At the time I was nominated I absolutely refused to accept the nomination because I am a very busy man. Perhaps my time is not as valuable as -that of the hon. member for West Peterborough, but I felt I would have to make a very great sacrifice indeed to accept nomination even to a seat in this House. However, when our convention- and I want to tell the House that it was thoroughly representative of the two counties composing my constituency, and they are not two of the least counties in the province of New Brunswick;, and that province, although of small area, is not one of the most unimportant of the provinces- when that convention insisted on my accepting the nomination, I decided that it was my duty to do so, but I told them that I must impose the terms on which I shall accept it. The terms were that the electors should pay my legitimate campaign expenses, that they must not spend one dollar for anything but legitimate expenses, and
that after the election they must have those accounts audited and published, and if I found they had spent one dollar for illegitimate purposes I would resign my seat. Because, Mr. Speaker, I would disdain to occupy a seat in this House if it cost one dollar to buy a vote to elect me. While I consider it the highest honour that can be conferred upon men to elect them as representatives of the people in this House, I think the, man who buys his way into Parliament is condemned before he comes here.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of being elected by the United Farmers. I want to tell the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham)-and perhaps he is not to blame for some of these statements; possibly we may attribute part of them to his ignorance of conditions and of the size of the farmers' movement in the East-but I want to tell him and other hon. members that the farmers' movement is very small indeed in New Brunswick. For instance, Igot 1,000 more votes in the counties I represent than there were United Farmers in the whole province. And during the campaign I never personally asked one elector to vote for me. I spoke at several of our farmers' clubs, and I can prove this statement, that I told them upon every occasion I did not want them to feel under any obligation to vote for me simply because they belonged to the United Farmers' Organization and I happened to be their President. I told them, " If you do not want to elect an independent man as your member, do not vote for me, because I will guarantee to be strictly independent if elected, and I will use my best judgment as to what course to take on any matters that may come before the House of Commons."
I do not wish to take up the time of the House at any great length, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say that I was somewhat surprised to find a man who presumably bv the wording of his resolution is a self-confessed uplifter, so strongly opposed to prohibition. I want to tell him that I am in favour of prohibition, and that the mud he slung at the prohibitionists comes from him with a very bad grace indeed. He stated that he believed the Farmers' party would be thrown into the garbage barrel. Mr. Speaker, I hope when that happens the people will take my hon. friend out of the barrel before they put me in, for I would not like to occupy the same barrel with him.
Another statement that somewhat surprised me, coming from such an eminent uplifter, was that he would admit that even

he could be unseated for corrupt practices at his election.


John Hampden Burnham: I did not say that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the House that I am right. He said that he did not believe-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is bound to accept the statement now made by the hon. member for Peterborough.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If I misquote my hon. friend I want him -to correct me. He said that he did not believe there was a member of this House who could not be unseated if the matter was followed up.


John Hampden Burnham: I said with reference to the statement yesterday of the hon. member for Assimboia (Mr. Gould) that I did not believe there was a member in this House who, if be put in such a statement, could not be unseated.
Mr. -CALDWELL:	Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, evidently I misunderstood my hon. friend. If he had made the statement which I understood him to- make, I would like to take issue with him. I defy any man to unseat me, because I am thoroughly convinced that my supporters carried out the instructions I gave them when I accepted their nomination. If I were not well convinced of that fact I would not occupy my seat in this House five minutes longer.


Mr. J. A. MAHARG (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted I would like to give the House a little information and show the "line-up," if I may use the phrase, in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham) is evidently -placing us by his attitude on different questions. I have before me a -copy of Toronto Saturday Night of April 10, 1920, headed "The New Salvation, by J. H. Burnham, M.A., M.P."-the gentleman who introduced this resolution. I just wish to quote a few of his statements ,so that the people throughout the Dominion will be able to place a proper value on what he has said in regard to the prohibition movement and also in regard to the new political movement which he gives the agriculturalists credit for propagating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it all.


John Archibald Maharg: It is a rather lengthy article and I will merely give a few quotations to sho-w the attitude of the writer on certain matters. He says:

It matters not that individual liberty is tied in chains. Do as you are told-it is not for the individual to work out his own salvation. The majority decides all and for all. The policeman and the informer do the rest.
Further on I find this statement:
The drama of life, in which the individual stands before God in the full glare of sin and temptation and leaning on Christ, conquers evt n death itself, and in triumph enters into rest- is a play that is played out.
Now, if that is not a most significant statement coming from a gentleman who undertakes in this case to castigate those who are' trying to bring about better conditions


John Hampden Burnham: I may explain that
that is a sarcastic reference to statements made by prohibitionists. They say that the drama is played out and that they have introduced something new.


John Archibald Maharg: That is the hon. member's interpretation of what they say, not their statement.


John Hampden Burnham: Be fair about it.


John Archibald Maharg: Then he says:
The death of Jesus Christ was a mistake Ii was a fearful error. If God had not made it easy to sin and prohibited the means of evil there would have been no fall, and man would pursue his way in life like the eagle or the song bird, unmindful of that which he could no longer turn to his own destruction, sinless and shameless.
Now, I just mention these few things to let the public know the calibre of the hon. gentleman and the ideas upon which he evidently bases his argument. He says further :
Had the Deity been " a man " of efficient actio

, and a member of the W.C.T.U.. he would have slain the serpent ere he created it. and would have destroyed the vine that made Noah drunk.	/
He undertakes in this issue of Saturady Night to criticize the Deity; then he comes here to-day and criticizes the Rev. Ben Spence, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and prohibition in general. He winds up by giving members of the cross benches a little advice. He is welcome to give all the advice that he wishes; the more unfounded ridicule he offers to us the better we shall be satisfied.
Then, in Ms article he goes on to say- and this is the most striking evidence of his attitude:
" I am the Vine." said Christ. " Cursed be the Vine." say we.
The only inference from this remark is that when Christ said "I am the Vine,"

he was referring to the vine that produces the wine that sparkles, and so on. There are several other similar statements in the article, but I shall not go into them further. I have given sufficient, I think, to let the people of Canada understand the calibre of the hon. gentleman and the ideals that he upholds.
Now, let us turn back to his resolution. He wants to make it a criminal offence for any one to make contributions of any kind to campaign funds; yet be states today that he has absolutely no objection to constituencies providing their own funds to carry on their own election campaigns. I want to inform the hon. member that that is exactly what the farmers of Western Canada are doing. Every constituency controls their own fund; it is 'in their own hands; they collect it and they control it. Where, then, is this tremendous fund that the hon. member speaks of, and which is to be used to corrupt all and sundry? Nothing was said about the back-door method, the underhand or secret method that nobody knew anything kbout, until the honest and aboveboard method was practised. The underhand method has been going on and on and nobdy has made objection to it, but now that the light has been thrown upon it and proper methods adopted of collecting campaign funds, methods that will do away with corruption, our uplifters, if we may use the term employed by our friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Caldwell) take objection.
My hon. Mend goes back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. That is another indication of just how up-to-date he is. He would be well-advised to move forward a step or two and try to get himself up to modern times when he undertakes to criticise popular movements that are taking place today.
I do not intend to make any defence as against my hon. friend's argument or to refute further the assertions which he has made. But his attitude on this question reminds me of a story which I heard a little while ago of two gentlemen from the Emerald Isle who had just come to this country. They thought that they would go on a little hunting expedition, and not being familiar with our game they were not very successful. They were returning home when they 'happened to hear something knocking, and on looking up they saw a woodpecker hammering away on the side of a tree. Pat, who was carrying the gun, was getting ready to pot the bird, not knowing just what it was, but Mike, who was
more observant cried out: "Hold on, Pat, just laive him alone; he'll batter his uwn brains out."


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman has paid me the compliment of alleging that I have some brains, a compliment which I am sorry I cannot pay him in turn. I wish to say-
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER* Unless the hon. member is rising for the purpose of making some explanation of the citation made by the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg)-


John Hampden Burnham: I was closing.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is my duty to remind the House that the member for West Peterborough is about to close the debate, and that if any other hon. member wishes to speak he should do so now.


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, because I am on the same side of the House as the hon. member who has introduced this resolution (Mr. Burnham) I do not wish it to be understood that I endorse in the slightest degree the position that he has taken this afternoon. I am decidedly opposed to it, as well as to the spirit in which he expressed his views and to very much of the language by means of which he expressed them.
I do not intend to discuss the name that is mentioned in the resolution. Hon. members from Ontario will be in a position to give proper weight to any remarks which have been made respecting the gentleman concerned. However, in passing I may say that my experience has been that in the main those who are opposed to the principle of prohibition have been far more ready to produce large campaign funds to support the continuance of the liquor traffic than temperance people have been able to do in their idea of promoting the principle of prohibition and total abstinence.
It is useless at this time to take any position opposed to prohibition. I speak not simply of prohibition of the liquor traffic, but of prohibition as a principle, as a policy. The fact of the matter, Sir, is this: unless we admit the principle and policy of prohibition, civilization becomes chaos. All legislation is based upon the principle of prohibition; if there are no prohibitions there is no civilization. Civilization rests upon certain recognized principles, one of which is that certain things must be prohibited. I do not intend to develop the argument in regard to the liquor question; that is not necessary on this occasion. But
I

I wish to say that I am an agrarian, though not a member of the Agrarian party. But if I were a member of the Agrarian party, I should consider myself in very good company, whereas I am lost in the company of the hon. member who has virtually denounced the prohibitionists, the Y.M.C.A. workers, the W.C.T.U. leaders, and the members of the Agrarian party. On the whole, it is not a bad quartette. I want to state here openly and candidly that I do not endorse the position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) although I am on the same side of the House as the hon. gentleman. I do not believe in his principle, nor in his policy, nor in his spirit, nor in the attitude taken towards the great movements which have brought society up to the high position that it occupies to-day in regard to the moral questions to which he has indirectly referred and which, in the main, I am sorry to say he has appeared to denounce or, at any rate, to ridicule. I regret that such a position was taken to-day in this House, and I want to place myself on record as being opposed to such a position and as being stiongly in support of the principles which these bodies have so long and faithfully enunciated and maintained before the people, namely, the prohibition of the liquor traffic in this country as a business, and also the ideals, social, economic, moral and religious, which the Y.M.C.A. and the W.C.T.U. have, to the extent of their ability, set before the people of Canada as being worthy of their adoption and achievement.
Mr. JOHN F. REIID (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words in reference to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Peterborough West (.Mr. Burnham). The resolution says in part:
And in view of the fact that such immense sums-*
Referring to this $5,000,000 campaign fund to be collected by the prohibitionists.
-tend_ to the corruption by patronage, and otherwise, of press and people and to the destruction of public liberty and public morals.
Then the hon. member has a crack at the Farmers' party.
And in view of the reported collection of party funds for the Farmers' party and parties.
He should have inserted here "and funds from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or what is known to-day as the Reconstruction Association."


John Hampden Burnham: All parties are referred to.


Mr. J. F. RHID:: I have not the least doubt that the hon. member knows whereof he speaks in regard to corruption from patronage and from campaign funds which from some unknown source have come to his constituency and to every other constituency in this Dominion. He has now a nightmare; he sees the Farmers' party rising, and in his feeble endeavour he is trying to do his little bit to put the Farmers' party out of business. We welcome such attempts as he has put forward; that is powder to us; it gives us more strength.
My hon. friend used very strong language in regard to what would be the eventual effect on the country of the Farmers' party going from door to door soliciting campaign funds. He went even so far as to suggest treason and, if I forget not, civil war. I should like my hon. friend, when he replies in closing the debate, to explain to the House just what he means by treason, and, perhaps, civil war, and how the actions of this new movement are going to bring about this terrible calamity which he sees, probably, in his slumbers. He says further that we have the impudence to dare to collect funds, flf am of the opinion, and I believe that it is the opinion held by all ~ those who see this movement as this Farmers' group sees it, that the cause of this movement was the unlimited supply of slush funds that came into our constituents in the West to debauch the electorate.
I challenge my hon. friend to contradict that.


John Hampden Burnham: I did not catch what the hon. gentleman said. A page who happened to speak to me interrupted me.


John Flaws Reid: One of the causes of the rise of this new movement in the Farmers' Organizations in collecting in their constituencies their campaign funds was the fact that under the old party system thousands of dollars were brought into each constituency,-I am speaking more particularly of the West, about which I know -to debauch the electorate.


John Hampden Burnham: I have no doubt
about that.
Mr. J. F, REID: The hon. member knows all about it.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not know all about it.


John Flaws Reid: The first election campaign I saw in the Dominion of Canada was

in 1882, and I have been more or less active in election campaigns from that time until now. I have seen some of the workings of this mysteriously received campaign fund. We knew not whence it came, but we had an idea. It is the wish of the (fanners' movement to put a stoip 'to all that; that there should be no more of it, and I think every hon. gentleman in this House will hail the day when that is put a stop to. If each constituency would take upon itself the responsibility of financing its own candidate, then there would be no opportunity for the big concerns to dump in the'ir slush funds.	>


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, ask all you like.


Donald Sutherland: Is it not a fact that one of the promoters of the original organization of the United Farmers of Ontario made the statement that it was the money that was supplied to them by the Grain Growers of the West and the assistance and advice they received from the leader of the party over there that they were enabled to carry on at the outset? Will he deny that the money was supplied by the Grain Growers of the West?


John Flaws Reid: Will my hon. friend make his question a little clearer? I am rather slow to catch on. Has he reference to political funds?


Donald Sutherland: Most assuredly.


John Flaws Reid: Then I say: No, not one dollar of political funds went from the West to the United Farmers of Ontario.


Donald Sutherland: But they are a political organization, and one of the original members of that party published a statement in which.he says that had it not been for the money received from the Grain Growers of the West, they would not have been able to carry on.


John Flaws Reid: Carry on what?


Donald Sutherland: The organization of the United Farmers of Ontario.


John Flaws Reid: That is different altogether. I am speaking of political organizations; my hon. friend is speaking of Grain Growers' Association^.


Mr. LALOR:: They are all political organizations.	,


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) stated 79
that labour was complaining of the high cost of living and that the farmers were complaining of the high price of labour. Speaking as a farmer, I am perfectly satisfied to pay labour the wage which it asks for, and I will ask the hon. member to join with the Farmers' Organization and help out labour and help us to take the duty off foodstuffs so that labour may have food cheaper, thus reducing the cost of living.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to take part in the discussion which has covered a fairly wide field of opinion upon many questions which were, perhaps, not absolutely essential to the proper determination whether we ought to make the creation of any campaign fund a criminal offence. I rise simply to suggest to the hon. member who introduced the resolution that he might, perhaps, consider whether he might not with propriety withdraw that resolution. He has had an opportunity of very fully and frankly exposing his views on the different matters that are referred to in the motion.
He has evoked what may be described as a very frank and a very full expression of views on these different questions not quite in accord with his own. So far as the purpose he seeks to achieve by this motion is concerned, I should like to call his attention to the fact that we have presently before the House a^ franchise Bill dealing with questions precisely of this kind, and I would suggest to him that that perhaps would be the proper place for the House to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the desirability of making provision concerning campaign funds in general and campaign funds of particular kinds. Having that opportunity, 1 would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he would Jose nothing by withdrawing the present motion, if he desires to insist upon his proposal that funds of that nature should be absolutely prohibited as being criminal offences. In this connection perhaps I might take the liberty of suggesting, to him, as his resolution is apparently based on a report as to a very large sum of money which a reverend gentleman has estimated as being necessary to carry on a particular campaign for prohibition, that the report, as Mark Twain said of the report of his death, may be somewhat exaggerated. It seems a trifle difficult to believe that the reverend gentleman referred to, the Rev. Mr. Spence, who from his general record we all I am sure, are satisfied is, generally speaking, most temperate in his habits, could have contracted such very ex-



pensive habits with regard to campaign j funds. Perhaps with that as an additional reason, the hon. gentleman might be satisfied to withdraw his resolution with a view, perhaps, to satisfying himself more perfectly as to the accuracy of the report upon which he premises his conclusions.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM: Mr. Speaker, when I put this resolution on the Order Paper the Franchise Act, so far as I knew, was not then in contemplation. I quite agree that the clause in the Franchise Act which has been adopted referring to campaign funds probably covers the dangerous phase to which I refer in my resolution.
I wish to say in regard to farmers that I had no intention of condemning farmers or even the Farmers' party, but I did condemn many of the principles which they laid down in their platform, among them being what I understood to be a national campaign fund.
It is a national campaign fund that I object to, and not constituency campaign funds. Perhaps my resolution might be plainer in that respect.
As to my reference to treason, which an hon. member asked me to explain, I did not refer to the Farmers' party in particular, but to all movements which might have a sinister bearing on the policy of the country. Like Caesar's wife they must avoid the very suspicion of evil, and if they do not, they must be prevented from doing evil. We must observe the principle - that all men are equal before the law.
With regard to prohibition, the reason why I ridicule and fight it is because it is an anti-Christian measure. No man can be a prohibitionist without sneering at the policy of the Most High, "which is not prohibition. There is no prohibition of evil in the Christian religion. The prohibitionist cannot be a religious man; he is nothing but a tyrant. It is because I hope that 1 am at heart a Christian and a religious man that I am fighting prohibition, and will fight it to the end, because I believe that it does not come from God, and it cannot be supported by a single quotation from the Word of God. I believe it comes from the devil, whither it will go. I withdraw the resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.



GRAND TRUNK ACQUISITION.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: I prer *sume that the Government will be agree-

*able to bringing down the correspondence between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government, with respect to the agreement that Parliament is to be asked to confirm. I think the correspondence will be necessary if we are to discuss intelligently the agreement before confirming it.


George Green Foster: It will be brought down. We might call it six o'clock, I think.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: What business does 'the Government intend to take up tomorrow?


George Green Foster: The Grand
Trunk Bill, and as soon as that is finished we will take up the Franchise Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we should have the correspondence before we discuss the Bill.


George Green Foster: Does my hon. friend object to going on with the Bill to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a Bill of only two clauses, I understand. One *clause is to correct an error. We could take that, but I do not think we should be asked to confirm the agreement until we have the correspondence.


George Green Foster: We will tackle the Bill and see what progress we can make.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 15, 1920